Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Coke
The problem I have with this data and the 'fight against child poverty' is what is considered child poverty. People on here are talking about not eating and living on the street, what most of us would consider real poverty. The definition for these stats is;
"Child Poverty
The proportion of children 17 years and under living in households where disposable income is less than half of the median in a given country."
So in a rich country like ours, the median is high and so many that are considered poor are relatively well off. And no matter how much they have, there will always be a substantial number of people considered to be in statistical poverty.
So we actually do take very good care of our collective children, even though the statistics published make it appear to be much worse than it is. Can we do better? Always, there will be some that slip through cracks. But it isn't the simplistic left wing solution of more money..higher taxes....otherwise you don't care about people.
Spoken as someone who grew up very solidly below the poverty line.
|
Is that really the definition of poverty? Because that is a terrible measure. That accurately measures wealth inequality but not poverty. I don't mean to doubt you but do you have a link to where that definition is being used as poverty?